DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (claims 5 - 18) in the reply filed on 12/29/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites, “receive an authentication code provided via the first party device in accordance with a security-based communication protocol;”
“confirm the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party;”
This should be -- [[DELETE receive]] receiving an authentication code provided via the first party device in accordance with a security-based communication protocol; --
-- [[DELETE confirm]] confirming the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party; -- or something similar.
Consistent formatting.
Claim 5 recites, “providing access to different networks, including communicating with the different networks using different respective network-specific protocols for each of the networks;”
“selecting, using the retrieved portion of the stored profile data, one of the networks for processing the particular action for the first party;” and
“responsive to the authentication, using the selected one of the networks to effect the particular action via the network.”
This should be -- providing access to different networks, including communicating with the different networks using different respective network-specific protocols for each of the different networks; --
-- selecting, using the retrieved portion of the stored profile data, one of the different networks for processing the particular action for the first party; -- and
-- responsive to the authentication, using the selected one of the different networks to effect the particular action via the [[DELETE network]] selected one of the different networks.-- or something similar.
To avoid undue interpretation, consistent terminology should be used (e.g., “different networks” vs. “networks”).
Claim 16 recites, “confirming authentication code use according to the security-based communication protocol by involving a text message conveyed between a mobile phone linked or corresponding to the first party identifier and a processing control circuit that is operated on behalf of an institution.”
This should be -- confirming the authentication code [[DELETE use]] according to the security-based communication protocol by involving a text message conveyed between a mobile phone linked or corresponding to the first party identifier and a processing control circuit that is operated on behalf of an institution. -- or something similar.
Terms previously referenced should be preceded by language such as “the” or “said” to clarify the prior reference.
Claim 17 recites “accessing the action data by accessing action data packets that are packaged for sending to the different networks in accordance with the respective communication protocol for each network, and”
“sending to each network, selective information that is proprietary to that network's account or accounts having a bearing upon the action, by separating first party information from second party information in the action data, by sending the separated first party information to one of the networks for the first party and by sending the separated second party information to one of the networks for the second party, so that each network receives only that information pertinent to the action for that network.”
This should be -- accessing the action data by accessing action data packets that are packaged for sending to the different networks in accordance with the respective communication protocol for each network of the different networks, and --
-- sending to each network of the different networks, selective information that is proprietary to that network's account or accounts having a bearing upon the action, by separating first party information from second party information in the action data, by sending the separated first party information to one of the different networks for the first party and by sending the separated second party information to one of the different networks for the second party, so that each network of the different networks receives only that information pertinent to the action for that network. -- or something similar.
To avoid undue interpretation, consistent terminology should be used (e.g., “different networks” vs. “networks”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5 - 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11507930. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to:
US App. No. 18799689 (as represented by claim 5)
US Pat. No. 11507930 (as represented by claim 11)
A method of effecting a particular action involving a first party having a first party device and a second party having a second party device, the method comprising:
A system that provides access to disparate autonomous payment networks respectively having network-specific payment processing protocols, buyer, the buyer paying for the goods on behalf of users including a buyer having a mobile phone and a seller, the seller providing goods or services to the or services with the mobile phone, the system comprising:
providing access to different networks, including communicating with the different networks using different respective network-specific protocols for each of the networks; and
a point-of-sale interface circuit communicatively coupled to receive, for a transaction, electronic point-of-sale transaction data from a remote point-of-sale terminal that is to wirelessly communicate with the buyer's mobile phone at the remote point of sale terminal;
receiving action data for the particular action;
a payment network interface circuit to provide access to a plurality of the disparate autonomous payment networks using the respective, and different network-specific payment processing protocols; and
identifying using the action data, a first party identifier of the first party and a second party identifier of the second party;
a computer processor circuit to, for each transaction and the point-of-sale transaction data received therefor; identify, using the point-of-sale transaction data, buyer ID data and seller ID data respectively for the buyer and the seller in the transaction;
retrieving a portion of stored profile data associated with the first party identifier;
retrieve, from a data-storage circuit that stores profile data for each of the users, a portion of the profile data that is electronically associated with the ID data for each of the buyer and the seller;
selecting, using the retrieved portion of the stored profile data, one of the networks for processing the particular action for the first party;
select, using the retrieved portion of the profile data, one of the disparate autonomous payment networks for the buyer to process electronic payment for the transaction;
receive an authentication code provided via the first party device in accordance with a security-based communication protocol;
provide security-based communication between the buyer's-mobile phone and the remote point of sale terminal by directing a request for an authentication code to the buyer's mobile phone;
confirm the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party; and
and authenticate the transaction in response to receiving a message from the buyer's mobile phone including the authentication code.
responsive to the authentication, using the selected one of the networks to effect the particular action via the network.
Claims 5 - 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12093906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to:
US App. No. 18799689 (as represented by claim 5)
US Pat. No. 12093906 (as represented by claim 19)
A method of effecting a particular action involving a first party having a first party device and a second party having a second party device, the method comprising:
A method performed by a system, the system including a computer circuit arrangement, a point-of-sale interface circuit, a data-storage circuit, a payment network interface circuit and a computer processor circuit, the method comprising:
providing access to different networks, including communicating with the different networks using different respective network-specific protocols for each of the networks;
providing, by the computer circuit arrangement, access to different payment networks respectively having network-specific payment processing protocols, on behalf of a buyer having a buyer's handheld device in a form of a mobile phone or a transaction card and a seller providing goods or services to the buyer who is to pay for the goods or services using the buyer's handheld device;
receiving action data for the particular action;
receiving, by the point-of-sale interface circuit that is communicatively integrated with the computer circuit arrangement, electronic point-of-sale transaction data for a particular transaction from a remote point-of-sale terminal that is to wirelessly communicate with the buyer's handheld device at the remote point-of-sale terminal for receiving buyer ID data for the buyer, the buyer ID data for the buyer being included in the electronic point-of-sale transaction data;
identifying using the action data, a first party identifier of the first party and a second party identifier of the second party;
storing, by the data-storage circuit, profile data for the buyer;
retrieving a portion of stored profile data associated with the first party identifier;
providing, by the payment network interface circuit, access to the different payment networks, including communicating with the different payment networks using different respective network-specific payment processing protocols for each of the different payment networks; and
selecting, using the retrieved portion of the stored profile data, one of the networks for processing the particular action for the first party;
for the electronic point-of-sale transaction data received for the particular transaction: identifying, by the computer processor circuit and using the electronic point-of- sale transaction data, the buyer ID data and seller ID data respectively for the buyer and the seller in the particular transaction,
receive an authentication code provided via the first party device in accordance with a security-based communication protocol;
retrieving, by the computer processor circuit from the data-storage circuit, a retrieved portion of the profile data that is electronically associated with the buyer ID data for the buyer,
confirm the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party; and
selecting, by the computer processor circuit and using the retrieved portion of the profile data, a selected one of the different payment networks for the buyer to process electronic payment for the particular transaction,
responsive to the authentication, using the selected one of the networks to effect the particular action via the network.
confirming, by the computer processor circuit, use of an authentication code, provided via the buyer's handheld device and in accordance with a security-based communication protocol involving the buyer, to authenticate and verify approval of the particular transaction by the buyer, and
using, by the computer processor circuit, the selected one of the different payment networks to effect payment for the particular transaction via the payment network interface circuit in response to authenticating and verifying approval of the particular transaction by the buyer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 5 - 18 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 5 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 5, is/are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves providing access to different networks; and receiving action data for the particular action; identifying using the action data, a first party identifier of the first party and a second party identifier of the second party; retrieving a portion of stored profile data associated with the first party identifier; selecting, using the retrieved portion of the stored profile data, one of the networks for processing the particular action for the first party; receiving an authentication code provided in accordance with a security-based communication protocol; confirming the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party; and responsive to the authentication, effecting the particular action, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (a particular action (e.g., “wherein the particular action effects a transfer from the first party to the second party”)); commercial or legal (a particular action (e.g., “wherein the particular action effects a transfer from the first party to the second party”)); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (providing/ communicating, receiving, identifying, retrieving, selecting, receive, confirm, using ….. to effect).
The mere nominal recitation of “involving a first party having a first party device and a second party having a second party device” (preamble only) does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to providing access to different networks; and receiving action data for the particular action; identifying using the action data, a first party identifier of the first party and a second party identifier of the second party; retrieving a portion of stored profile data associated with the first party identifier; selecting, using the retrieved portion of the stored profile data, one of the networks for processing the particular action for the first party; receiving an authentication code provided in accordance with a security-based communication protocol; confirming the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party; and responsive to the authentication, effecting the particular action.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “involving a first party having a first party device and a second party having a second party device” (preamble only), nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, the claim encompasses the user manually providing access to different networks; and receiving action data for the particular action; identifying using the action data, a first party identifier of the first party and a second party identifier of the second party; retrieving a portion of stored profile data associated with the first party identifier; selecting, using the retrieved portion of the stored profile data, one of the networks for processing the particular action for the first party; receiving an authentication code provided in accordance with a security-based communication protocol; confirming the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party; and responsive to the authentication, effecting the particular action.
The mere nominal recitation of “involving a first party having a first party device and a second party having a second party device” (preamble only) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “involving a first party having a first party device and a second party having a second party device” (preamble only). NOTE: The claim is silent regarding a machine performing any of the positively recited steps or acts recited in the body of the claim. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of providing access to different networks including “communicating with the different networks using different respective network-specific protocols for each of the networks”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the authentication code received is provided “via the first party device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of effecting the particular action occurs “using the selected one of the networks” and “via the network”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”/ “communicating”, “receiving”, “retrieving”, “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “identifying”, “selecting”, “receive”, “confirm”, “using ….. to effect”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering action data for the particular action), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) Although a “first party device” and a “second party device” are referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of the “first party device” and the “second party device”; and the “first party device” and the “second party device” do not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. NOTE: The claim is silent regarding a machine performing any of the positively recited steps or acts recited in the body of the claim. (b) Although a “networks” are referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of the “networks” and the “networks” do not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 08/09/24 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Kight, US Pub. No. 2003/0004867; Stambaugh, US Pub. No. 2007/0175978; Coronna, US Pub. No. 2002/0111916; Dua, US Pub. No. 2006/0165060; and Korotin, US Pub. No. 2004/0105444 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”/ “communicating”, “receiving”, “retrieving”, “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “identifying”, “selecting”, “receive”, “confirm”, “using ….. to effect”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”/ “communicating”, “receiving”, “retrieving”, “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “identifying”, “selecting”, “receive”, “confirm”, “using ….. to effect”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 6 - 18 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "accessing the action data by accessing action data packets that are packaged for sending to the different networks in accordance with the respective communication protocol for each network, and”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the respective communication protocol” in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kight, US Pub. No. 2003/0004867 in view of Stambaugh, US Pub. No. 2007/0175978 and Coronna, US Pub. No. 2002/0111916.
Re Claim 5: Kight discloses a method of effecting a particular action involving a first party having a first party device and a second party having a second party device, the method comprising:
providing access to different networks, including communicating with the different networks using different respective network-specific protocols for each of the networks (Kight, abstract, [0034] [0035] [0036]); and
receiving action data for the particular action (Kight, abstract, [0034] [0035] [0036]);
identifying using the action data, a first party identifier of the first party and a second party identifier of the second party (Kight, [0036] [0038]);
retrieving a portion of stored profile data associated with the first party identifier (Kight, [0036] [0038] [0039]);
selecting, using the retrieved portion of the stored profile data, one of the networks for processing the particular action for the first party (Kight, [0037] [0039]);
Kight fails to explicitly disclose:
receive an authentication code provided via the first party device in accordance with a security-based communication protocol;
confirm the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party; and
responsive to the authentication, using the selected one of the networks to effect the particular action via the network.
Stambaugh discloses:
receive an authentication code provided via the first party device in accordance with a security-based communication protocol (Stambaugh, abstract, [0011] [0012] [0013] [0017] [0045] [0046] [0050] [0051] [0052] [0055]);
confirm the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party (Stambaugh, abstract, [0011] [0012] [0013] [0017] [0045] [0046] [0050] [0051] [0052] [0055]);
Coronna discloses:
responsive to the authentication, using the selected one of the networks to effect the particular action via the network (Coronna, abstract, [0008] [0009] [0010] [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight by adopting the teachings of Stambaugh and Coronna to provide receive an authentication code provided via the first party device in accordance with a security-based communication protocol; confirm the authentication code to authenticate and verify approval of the particular action by the first party; and responsive to the authentication, using the selected one of the networks to effect the particular action via the network.
One would have been motivated to improve security and minimize risk for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 6: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra and Coronna further discloses wherein the particular action effects a transfer from the first party to the second party using respective accounts that share a common proprietary network among the different networks (Coronna, abstract, [0008] [0009] [0010] [0011] [0039]).
Re Claim 16: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra and Stambaugh further discloses confirming authentication code use according to the security-based communication protocol by involving a text message conveyed between a mobile phone linked or corresponding to the first party identifier and a processing control circuit that is operated on behalf of an institution (Stambaugh, abstract, [0011] [0012] [0013] [0017] [0045] [0046] [0050] [0051] [0052] [0055]).
Re Claim 18: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra and Stambaugh further discloses sending an authentication text message for review by the first party (Stambaugh, abstract, [0011] [0012] [0013] [0017] [0045] [0046] [0050] [0051] [0052] [0055]); and
authenticating the particular action in response to receiving a confirmation indication from the first party (Stambaugh, abstract, [0011] [0012] [0013] [0017] [0045] [0046] [0050] [0051] [0052] [0055]).
Claims 7 - 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Dua, US Pub. No. 2006/0165060.
Re Claim 7: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention and Coronna further discloses:
wherein the single account is linked to each of multiple ones of the different networks (Coronna, abstract, [0008] [0009] [0010] [0011] [0039]).
Coronna fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first party device stores account identification data corresponding to a single account to be used by the second party device for processing the particular action.
Dua discloses:
wherein the first party device stores account identification data corresponding to a single account to be used by the second party device for processing the particular action (Dua, [0048] [0056] [0060] [0336] [0422]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Dua to provide wherein the first party device stores account identification data corresponding to a single account to be used by the second party device for processing the particular action.
One would have been motivated to provide increased speed, flexibility and convenience for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 8: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose obtaining, at the second party device and from the first party device, data related to at least one of a plurality of accounts of the first party that can be used for the particular action.
Dua discloses:
obtaining, at the second party device and from the first party device, data related to at least one of a plurality of accounts of the first party that can be used for the particular action (Dua, [0048] [0056] [0060] [0336] [0422]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Dua to provide obtaining, at the second party device and from the first party device, data related to at least one of a plurality of accounts of the first party that can be used for the particular action.
One would have been motivated to provide increased speed, flexibility and convenience for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 9: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose obtaining the first party identifier at the second party device by way of radio-frequency identification technology.
Dua discloses:
obtaining the first party identifier at the second party device by way of radio-frequency identification technology (Dua, [0296] [0315] [0318] [0382]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Dua to provide obtaining the first party identifier at the second party device by way of radio-frequency identification technology.
One would have been motivated to provide increased speed, flexibility and convenience for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 10: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first party device does not display or otherwise provide an external identifier as part of the first party identifier for the particular action.
Dua discloses:
wherein the first party device does not display or otherwise provide an external identifier as part of the first party identifier for the particular action (Dua, [0042] [0047] [0048] [0418] [0433]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Dua to provide wherein the first party device does not display or otherwise provide an external identifier as part of the first party identifier for the particular action.
One would have been motivated to provide increased speed, flexibility and convenience for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 11: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose receiving, at the second party device, an internal identifier from the first party device as part of the first party identifier.
Dua discloses:
receiving, at the second party device, an internal identifier from the first party device as part of the first party identifier (Dua, [0042] [0047] [0048] [0418] [0433]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Dua to provide receiving, at the second party device, an internal identifier from the first party device as part of the first party identifier.
One would have been motivated to provide increased speed, flexibility and convenience for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 12: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the security-based communication protocol is based on an encrypted code from the first party device for verification before completion of the particular action.
Dua discloses:
wherein the security-based communication protocol is based on an encrypted code from the first party device for verification before completion of the particular action (Dua, [0261] [0319] [0362]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Dua to provide wherein the security-based communication protocol is based on an encrypted code from the first party device for verification before completion of the particular action.
One would have been motivated to provide increased speed, flexibility and convenience for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 13: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the security-based communication protocol for the particular action includes a confirmation requirement that the first party device is located proximate the second party device.
Dua discloses:
wherein the security-based communication protocol for the particular action includes a confirmation requirement that the first party device is located proximate the second party device (Dua, abstract, [0026] [0315] [0318] [0405]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Dua to provide wherein the security-based communication protocol for the particular action includes a confirmation requirement that the first party device is located proximate the second party device.
One would have been motivated to provide increased speed, flexibility and convenience for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 14: Kight in view of Stambaugh, Coronna and Dua discloses the claimed invention supra and Dua further discloses
using a geographic-location confirmation circuit to confirm that the first party device is located at the second party device (Dua, abstract, [0026] [0315] [0318] [0405]).
Re Claim 15: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a mobile phone linked or corresponding to the first party identifier is not used as an identification source for the particular action.
Dua discloses:
wherein a mobile phone linked or corresponding to the first party identifier is not used as an identification source for the particular action (Dua, [0042] [0047] [0048] [0418] [0433]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Dua to provide wherein a mobile phone linked or corresponding to the first party identifier is not used as an identification source for the particular action.
One would have been motivated to provide increased speed, flexibility and convenience for users.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Korotin, US Pub. No. 2004/0105444.
Re Claim 17: Kight in view of Stambaugh and Coronna discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose accessing the action data by accessing action data packets that are packaged for sending to the different networks in accordance with the respective communication protocol for each network, and
sending to each network, selective information that is proprietary to that network's account or accounts having a bearing upon the action, by separating first party information from second party information in the action data, by sending the separated first party information to one of the networks for the first party and by sending the separated second party information to one of the networks for the second party, so that each network receives only that information pertinent to the action for that network.
Korotin discloses:
accessing the action data by accessing action data packets that are packaged for sending to the different networks in accordance with the respective communication protocol for each network (Korotin, abstract, [0035] [0036] [0037] [0106] [0107] [0108] [0109]), and
sending to each network, selective information that is proprietary to that network's account or accounts having a bearing upon the action, by separating first party information from second party information in the action data, by sending the separated first party information to one of the networks for the first party and by sending the separated second party information to one of the networks for the second party, so that each network receives only that information pertinent to the action for that network (Korotin, abstract, [0035] [0036] [0037] [0106] [0107] [0108] [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kight in view Stambaugh and Coronna by further adopting the teachings of Korotin to provide accessing the action data by accessing action data packets that are packaged for sending to the different networks in accordance with the respective communication protocol for each network, and
sending to each network, selective information that is proprietary to that network's account or accounts having a bearing upon the action, by separating first party information from second party information in the action data, by sending the separated first party information to one of the networks for the first party and by sending the separated second party information to one of the networks for the second party, so that each network receives only that information pertinent to the action for that network.
One would have been motivated to improve efficiency and security.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695